Moses Mugalu
10 January 2009
interview
Kampala — DUTCH investor Ronald Scheer and his wife recently complained that a multi-million investment, Collar-IT, with potential of creating 20,000 jobs, had been blocked over environment concerns. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Executive Director Dr. Henry Aryamanya-Mugisha responds to them and also discusses the campaign to protect wetlands from encroachers in an interview with Moses Mugalu
Why are you blocking Ronald Scheer's ICT project at Kawuku near Kampala, which could bring in 20,000 jobs?
First of all, it's not a project. It is a proposed project because it has not been approved. This matter has been under discussion since May of last year. The Constitution provides for the protection of the environment. This covers rivers, lakes, wetlands and forests, which are supposed to be protected on behalf of the people by either the central government or the local government. And the Land Act clearly states that land utilisation should conform to the laws regulating the environment, wildlife, water and forests. The location of Collar-IT happens to be a lakeshore. Lake Victoria shores are protected because they are breeding grounds for fish. They also prevent siltation of the lake.
Dumping soil, nutrients, industrial waste as it had started happening you see the algae brome. At the end of the day, the treatment costs for water will escalate. And also compromise fishing in addition to people's health.
You've talked about algae brome, where's it?
You have heard of algae growing in Lake Victoria. It grows when a lot of nutrients and minerals from industries are washed into the lake.
The project owners claimed in a recent interview that you have interest in that particular piece of land. Is it true?
My interest, as the chief executive of NEMA, is to ensure that the law of the land is respected. I am not going to be intimidated by people who don't want to follow the law, and I am on record on this. I visited the area with the Netherlands ambassador, Maggie Kigozi of Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) and the environment state minister; so I know what I am talking about.
What about claims that you actually expressed regret that bazungu (whites) had been given mailoland?
This is nonsense! I have approved many projects belonging to either Ugandans or non-Ugandans. And this business of them being bazungu or not is not important. It is the environmental concerns that matter. By the way, you may wish to know that UIA offered to give them alternative land in Namanve Industrial Park.
But they claim that they have already spent over 500,000 euros (sh1.3b) on that site.
In May last year, NEMA and the wetlands department visited the site when they had not started construction. We told them that what they're doing was wrong. That was on May 20, 2008. We followed it up with another inspection on May 29 and we found out that they had started working and they were issued an improvement notice. But they defied it and continued building. They dug the canals to access the lake. Should do we keep quiet? No. The area in question was used as a community water well, but they covered it. So I think we're talking about people who are not being genuine. The law must be followed; there is nobody who is above the law.
Don't you regret that as a country, we are going to lose the opportunity of creating 20,000 jobs because of environmental concern?
You might be talking about jobs on paper, but if Lake Victoria is polluted, do we have enough financial and technological resources to clean it? Sometime back I closed a tannery on River Rwizi in Mbarara. Today, the iron sheets on houses around the area have been completely corroded and eaten up by chromium and acidic gases. And there are records and accounts that a number of people who used to work there are dead. Is that the situation you want?
What's your comment on their consistent claim that their project is at a distance from the lake beyond that stipulated by the law?
We've measured. Anybody can go there and measure. The proposed project building is within the lakeshore and wetland. Even the pillars of the structure are seated in water. You don't need a technical eye to see this.
In a recent interview, Scheer said that NEMA inspectors didn't have any objections to the project, but they (inspectors) told them 'well, its okay, but we cannot overrule our boss' decision'.
The law says that a project of that nature, even if it was not in a protected area, should briefly detail what they intend to do, where they intend to do it, what materials they are going to use and if there are environmental problems, how they intend to solve them. After looking at the details, we decide whether they can continue with a comprehensive impact assessment or not, but this was not done. So why do you start by violating the law and then you blame me for enforcing it?
What would you advise them to do?
Follow the law. The other day I was with them (points at NEMA and wetlands inspectors) visiting some parts of the lakeshore, looking at how people - those that have been permitted - are adhering to the conditions of approval. Why was the Dutch investor digging channels? Was this necessary for an IT facility? For you to have an IT facility, must you have canals?
But they say NEMA sometimes approves projects in similar locations.
If you don't follow the law, we get tough. If you follow the law, we guide you and you develop.
For instance, what about the Munyonyo Speke Resort?
I approved Munyonyo. We gave them a permit; if you look at the nature of their facility, you'll find that from the hotel to the water level, that area has been planted with grass and trees and, therefore, there is no siltation. If you look at the way they're managing their waste, - solid and liquid - the sewage is being evacuated. Their septic tanks are properly constructed, so they can't contaminate the water. It was approved after discussions with NEMA, National Water and Sewerage Corporation, KCC and other relevant authorities.
According to your explanation (above), there's a possibility that if Collar-IT had come to you first, they would have secured permission.
Depending on the nature of the development, yes. If it is a greenbelt like in the case of those who have planted vegetation and so on, that can be permitted. What we want is sustainable development - you develop, but you don't degrade the environment. We don't want a repeat of Kilembe Mines.
What happened?
Until recently, when the cobalt project came in, the spillages found their way into Lake George and the vegetation was eaten away. But Kasese Cobalt project has ensured that the vegetation is being restored.
So do you see Scheer's project going ahead or is this the end of it?
The law must be followed. We had problems with Mukwano Industries in Kampala because it came into existence before the law. We worked with them and they modified their systems and we no longer see smoke jutting out.
But there are claims that somebody told Scheer that you had personal interests in that land and you were annoyed on hearing that bazungu were given mailoland
No. Let them expose the details. I get upset when people flout the law and then they come up with all sorts of excuses. They are going around saying that one of our staff was bribed. Let the Inspector General of Government (IGG) investigate him.
Are you saying it is not true?
It cannot be true. If they're saying that the reason for stopping them is because the executive director has an interest in that land, let them prove it. I think I should take them to court.
Would you approve the project if they agreed to relocate it to another site?
Of course, we first have to look at the environmental aspect. By the way NEMA is for development, but development which is sustainable. And, we have approved many projects. People were anti-Bujagali, but we approved it. People were against DDT, but we approved it.
NEMA's critics and the public view you as a tiger paper because you approve some projects in wetlands and then reject others in the same areas. What's your comment?
Well, if I was a tiger paper, Nakayiba (wetland in Masaka) would still be degraded. But structures which were there were removed, wetland vegetation was planted and it has recovered. Go to Kapswaigi in Kapchorwa and look at the banks of that river; go to Teso Soroti wetlands, the structures which had built there are not there any more. In Kinawataka, Kampala, we are working very hard to protect the wetland. We are in Lubigi working with the local leadership and will soon move on to Nalukolongo.
The President has voiced his concern on wetlands like Kyambogo where industries are sprouting whereas you block development in wetlands elsewhere.
By the way, the President, as the head of state, superintends over all of us. Therefore, if he comes up and gives us guidance and says 'there's a problem here address it, there's an issue here, address it', there's nothing wrong with that. We've had several meetings with him. I think he appreciates what we're doing, but that doesn't stop him from pointing out anything wrong that he observes.
But do you find his concern particularly about industries being concentrated in Kyambogo wetlands genuine?
That area was gazetted as an industrial area way back in the 1960s.
Can't we have the other wetlands gazetted as industrial areas now?
Gazetting some wetlands does not mean that those which are not gazetted are not wetlands. Gazetting is a higher level of protection, so people should not use the excuse of saying 'this wetland is not gazetted and, therefore, can be done away with'.
The inventories which we're carrying out - in the water and wetlands departments - identify the nature of the wetlands, the characteristics and the functions. When we're giving permits for utilisation of wetlands, we take that into account. There are wetlands, for instance, where we say 'no we are not going to allow this kind of activity' and in others, it can be carried out, but in a guided and controlled manner.
When you appeared before a parliamentary committee that probed NSSF's controversial Temangalo land, you told MPs that according to NEMA, it was a wetland. Do you still stand by that?
But why are you misreporting? If you look at the acreage of land in question, we pointed out that 25% of that land was a seasonal wetland, but not the entire land. So 25% is a seasonal wetland based on the soil characteristics, based on the dominancy or seasonality of water and also based on the type of plants in that area. And that information was not simply arrived at by sitting here, no; people went on the ground for two days with GPSs (Global Position Systems), video cameras and they carried out an assessment. And this is on record, but not the entire area.
What about claims that you actually presented a fake report to the MPs?
Who says?
Some of the MPs say you had two reports, but shelved the genuine one.
You see, you need to be informed. One: they were given a video. Two: a detailed report. Three: an executive summary presented in power-point form, but it is the same report.
We received another copy different from the one you circulated .
You're talking about a power-point presentation dated 23rd that we appeared before Parliament, then another one dated 22nd. If you look at the power-point presentation, you find that probably it is about seven to eight pages, while the other one is a big document, but if you go through it, it is the same, except that the big one gives more details. To me, this business of doctoring a document is nonsense. It is not true.
What's your comment on the rampant allegations that investors or developers usually offer bribes to you or your staff to have their projects approved? And do your officers take bribes?
It's not true, because the approval process is not done by one person. And if there's such a case and they fear bringing it to my attention, let them go to the IGG, CID, the Prime Minister and the President and report this information. By the way, about five years ago, there was this rumour in Mbarara and they rang me saying 'your staff are taking money from investors' I said, 'that cannot be true.' And so we put in place machinery with that office; do know who we arrested? Graduates from Makerere University who had forged identity cards and headed paper and were posing as our officers.
So sometimes NEMA officials are impersonated?
Yes. We've had such cases three times. I don't want intimidation. People simply say 'so and so is doing this because he was intimidated'. No. And I've told people several times 'I am a professional and I've my reputation to protect, which I built for so many years. I'm not a politician and, therefore, I will not be intimidated, and I am not just looking for a job'.
You don't have any regrets?
No. When you are in these offices, these are the challenges you should expect.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
